• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Civil

Beneficial Indiana, Inc. v. Joy Properties, LLC, No. 02A05-1005-PL-260, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 10, 2011)

February 11, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

A claimant other than one identified Ind. Code 6-1.1-24-7 may pursue disbursement of a tax sale surplus in the trial court, and that equity requires that the claimant with the more substantial interest in the real estate should be granted disbursement of the tax sale surplus.

Dan Cristiani Excavating Co. Inc. v. Money, No. 10A05-1002-CT-114, __ N.E. 2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2010)

January 28, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

A series of adverse rulings against one party is not a pattern indicating bias without a demonstration of actual personal bias of the trial judge.

Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., No. 41A01-1005-CT-225, ____ N.E.2d ____ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2010)

January 7, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

An insurer can be required to pay prejudgment interest in excess of uninsured and/or underinsured motorist limits in an action brought by an insured for failure to pay uninsured and/or underinsured motorist coverage.

In re the Paternity of R.M., No. 45A04-1001-JP-14, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2010)

January 7, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

The defense of laches can apply in paternity actions.

In the Matter of the Paternity of: P.R., No. 36A01-1005-JP-255, ____ N.E.2d ______ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2010)

January 7, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial court properly took judicial notice of record in another proceeding, pursuant to Evidence Rule 201 as amended effective Jan. 2010, and permissibly did so post-hearing; the parties had the right to be heard on the notice but failed to demand it, thereby waiving the opportunity, although the better practice would have been for the trial court to have given the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking the judicial notice and issuing its order.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 213
  • Go to page 214
  • Go to page 215
  • Go to page 216
  • Go to page 217
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 256
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs